From: | Dave Page <dpage(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: EXPLAIN omits schema? |
Date: | 2007-06-13 12:20:25 |
Message-ID: | 466FE109.2030306@postgresql.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Stephen Frost wrote:
> Indeed, if you're not constructing the queries that would make things
> somewhat difficult. Then again, parsing the explain output seems like
> it's going to be rather difficult itself anyway.
Well, we do that anyway - and just grabbing the base table names isn't
too hard.
>> Just adding the schema name seems the most sensible and usable option -
>> not to mention the easiest!
>
> While completely ignoring the current behaviour and likely the reason
> it's done the way it is now... explain output was, and still is
> primairly, for humans to read.
Humans deserve schemas as well!! :-). As for the likely reason for the
current behaviour, well, I'd rather have precise,
non-potentially-ambiguous info than save a few characters.
Regards, Dave
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Lukas Kahwe Smith | 2007-06-13 12:35:17 | Re: EXPLAIN omits schema? |
Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2007-06-13 12:09:47 | Re: EXPLAIN omits schema? |